beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The right of sale of the instant apartment in mistake of facts ( Jeju F apartment No. 501) did not have been kept as security by the Defendant, but acquired the normal ownership from H in return for the execution and assistance in the sale of the instant apartment, obtained consent from H for the sale of the right of sale, and there was no intention or ability to sell it normally, and therefore there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation against the victim.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts of guilt.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, the fact that the instant right to sell the instant land was issued for the purpose of securing the ownership of the Defendant, by deceiving the Defendant as if he/she was his/her own possession, and by deceiving the Defendant of KRW 70
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
① The representative director H of G and the defendant of the company executing the new construction of the apartment of this case, and K of the above company, at the investigative agency and the court of original instance, are consistent with the following: “The right to sell the apartment of this case was prepared to provide financing for the new construction of the apartment of this case; K issued the right to sell the apartment of this case at the request of the defendant for financing; K notarized it as a security to borrow KRW 20 million from L which is the defendant’s punishment on September 23, 2014; and “the proposal for the resale contract should be explained if the sale contract was executed in a regular manner, but it did not go through such procedures, and there was no consent to the sale of the right to sell the apartment of this case at the time of the sale contract of this case.”